aha! got ya!!!
aha! got ya!!!
Bad Wigins wrote:what rock have you been hiding under? Everyone knows how Gatlin did that
laughable !!!
then why the hell did run crap 20.63 on return ???
why did he follow up with rubbish 20.11 in olympic year ???
how the hell coudn't he break 20.1 in olympic year with all that doping ???
how come he got even slower in '13 with 20.21 with all that doping ???
yyy wrote:aha! got ya!!!
complete inept
read above
You know it's a great thread when ventolin is the voice of reason.
ventolin^3 wrote:
laughable !!!
then why the hell did run crap 20.63 on return ???
why did he follow up with rubbish 20.11 in olympic year ???
how the hell coudn't he break 20.1 in olympic year with all that doping ???
how come he got even slower in '13 with 20.21 with all that doping ???
Perhaps it had something to do with not competing for several years. That can kind of take the edge off your speed. Also he wasn't really into the 200 just yet.
I didn't know you were a Gatlin-defender. I look forward to much amusing banter the next couple of months.
Btggvhgvjgjvvjh wrote:
Why is it that in the top 10 "all-time" 1500m, only 2 were run in Monaco and 3 were run in Zurich?
Because most of the other times in the top 10 were set in the EPO era, when there was no test for it. If EL G had Monaco as well as EPO, he'd have run 3:24, when in essence he was probably a 3:28 guy clean and on a normal track.
Wheating and Gregson are not 3:30 1500 guys, just as Baala and Cacho woe t have been running 3:28 without the EPO.
are you off-shell again?
The combined stupidity on this thread is just too much. I never thought I would read a thread were ventolin is the only sensible poster.
jamin wrote:
ventolin^3 wrote:please explain why the monaco track record for 400 post '10 is a totally crap 44.3 by lashawn last year when his sb was 43.9 in lausanne ???
that woud make lausanne an immensely faster track than monaco
This might be a dumb suggestion by me, but is it possible that the surface gives the most return for 1500-meter efforts?
Or let's suppose the track is short, say 398 meters. Wouldn't that make a trivial dent in 400 times compared to 1500-meter times?
The track isn't short. The Dibaba WR, as all world records, will need to be ratified by having it track certified as 400m.
Yes, tracks that are hard will help sprint times, those that are bouncy and give more energy return will help with middle and distance times.
The other issue that no one has brought up yet, is why does Kiprop et al always single out Monaco for their one real attack on fast times?
Well, firstly, there are rabbits laid on at pretty much every diamond league meet, but more than half the time the main protagonists don't go with the pace!
Look at Souleiman in Oslo mile this year. Great early pace, in depth competition, yet couldn't handle the pace in the closing stages.
It can't be the weather. The idea that Kiprop can expect ideal weather conditions in one place on one day each year, better than more than a dozen other venues is equally improbable.
Some have said its at the right time of the season! Well it's always held in mid July, while most Champs are in mid or late August. Why would the elite want to be at a peak 1 month before the most important race of the year?
Is it easy to hit your peak and then maintain it for the next 4 weeks?
Historically, elite athletes in championship years hit their peak for those champs in mid August and then after, when more relaxed, hit a fast time in the week or 2 that follow.
It seems strange to me that most of these 1500 guys run on average 2 secs faster at Monaco than anywhere else in a season, one month before a championship.
There is definitely something special about the Monaco track that springs up faster times than anywhere else. And it's not short.
Nice thread, Bad.
Bad Wigins wrote:
jamin wrote:but is it possible that the surface gives the most return for 1500-meter efforts?
1500 is a unique combination of a bounding stride at around same 180 cadence as long distance. Runners with long bouncy strides get a huge boost from a bouncy track. Like Kiprop. Dibaba.
400 and under is much higher cadence - it's more about grabbing the ground with your spikes and throwing it backwards than jumping into the air. Gravity can't be adjusted, so if you bounce higher you stay in the air longer and your cadence suffers. Sprints do better on a hard non-bouncy track like Historic Hayward Field.
Do you have an evidence to defend this claim, or are you just pulling it out of your ass?
Distance running is not an act of jumping into the air at all. That is a total waste of energy because going in the vertical direction does NOTHING for a runner. I guarantee Kiprop and Dibaba are masters at minimizing wasted energy in the vertical direction, i.e. they stay at a very steady level and do not bob up and down.
You remind me of my crazy old college coach who just made up notions about running with no sources.
Come someone please tell me:
1. The name of company(ies) that manufactured and installed the Monaco surface;
2. The name of specific product installed;
3. The precise physical attributes that make the surface supposedly so much faster than any other surface on the planet; and,
4. The other facilities where this same surface has been installed (presuming, of course, that this surface has been produced and installed in more than just this one track in the world)
To read the constant complaints, you'd think someone actually found the nutty professor's formula for Flubber and installed it on a track.
laughable wrote:
The combined stupidity on this thread is just too much. I never thought I would read a thread were ventolin is the only sensible poster.
Haha so true!
I don't know if it's so much the track but the air.
We know altitude helps the 400 and hinders the 1500.
The air quality and being near the sea may be more beneficial to longer races.
The main thing I have noticed is the quality and depth of the 1500m fields and the effort and attitude of the runners.
You just don't see a bunch of good runners going for it in other races.
Mostly credit Kiprop. He goes hard there and everyone tries to keep up.
The effort in the first half of a race determines how fast your finishing time can be.
The elites do not go out very hard in most races but like to try in Monaco.
Bad Wigins wrote:
it's more about grabbing the ground with your spikes and throwing it backwards than jumping into the air. Gravity can't be adjusted, so if you bounce higher you stay in the air longer and your cadence suffers.
This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
Insufferable Know-It-All wrote:
You know it's a great thread when ventolin is the voice of reason.
Everyone is a voice of reason when Bad wiggins is on it.
Zat0pek wrote:
Come someone please tell me:
1. The name of company(ies) that manufactured and installed the Monaco surface;
2. The name of specific product installed;
3. The precise physical attributes that make the surface supposedly so much faster than any other surface on the planet; and,
4. The other facilities where this same surface has been installed (presuming, of course, that this surface has been produced and installed in more than just this one track in the world)
To read the constant complaints, you'd think someone actually found the nutty professor's formula for Flubber and installed it on a track.
Interesting relevant info Deanouk posted in another recent thread:
The Monaco track was resurfaced just prior to the 2010 meet there: -
http://www.presse.gouv.mc/304/wwwnew.nsf/1909$/4141C64660AF4F5EC1257727002AD7E4GB?OpenDocument&1GB
This is an interesting exert: -
"The work will focus on the resurfacing of the areas concerned: the first few centimetres of the upper layer of the track will be scraped off, then replaced by rubber resin, cast in one jointless block. This is made possible due to the physico-chemical compatibility between the new and old resin. The track will be faster and therefore conducive to new records, including at the next Herculis athletics meeting - Diamond League on Thursday 22nd July 2010."
I don't claim to know why this particular way of resurfacing the track would make it faster, but it's clear that was the intent. Deanouk also went season by season 2010 - present comparing best Monaco times with best times elsewhere and came up with a difference of 2 - 2.5 seconds, which is to say about 1%.
Bottom line: it seems likely that the Monaco track is about 1% faster than other DL tracks for top 1500m runners.
related observation: Since 2004, the only venue where anyone has broken 3:29 for 1500m is Monaco after the 2010 resurfacing.
How many venues have the competitors (not the rabbits) even attempted to go out in under 1:52?
Maybe there's a secret arrangement where NO drug testing happens at Monaco, by orders of the princess.
Haha
dkny64 wrote:
"The work will focus on the resurfacing of the areas concerned: the first few centimetres of the upper layer of the track will be scraped off, then replaced by rubber resin, cast in one jointless block. This is made possible due to the physico-chemical compatibility between the new and old resin. The track will be faster and therefore conducive to new records, including at the next Herculis athletics meeting - Diamond League on Thursday 22nd July 2010."
Thanks for that. The term "rubber resin" is awfully vague. Do we know any more about the specific compound used?